`Unsupervised Learning` on Breast Tumor Biopsies

Background

Data

library(MASS)
data("biopsy")

The biopsy from MASS package was used for this project.

Reading biopsy dataset from MASS package

Libraries

The clustering functions (e.g., prcomp, hclust, and kmeans) used in this project are intrinsic to R-Base package. Other packages were needed for managing, and visualizing data and results.

library(readr)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(stringr)
library(gridExtra)
library(grid)
library(cluster)
library(DT)
library(ggplot2)
library(plotly)
library(gapminder)
library(purrr)
library(repurrrsive)  
library(tibble)
library(dplyr)
library(tidyr)
library(reshape)
library(ggpmisc)
library(naniar)
library(fpc)
library(cluster)
library(factoextra)
library(fpc)
library(NbClust)

biopsy Data Documentation

datatable(biopsy, filter = "top", options = list(pageLenght = 5, scrollX=T))

>Data source: ‘biopsy’ data documentation

Data columns

ID: sample code number (not unique)
V1: clump thickness
V2: uniformity of cell size.
V3: uniformity of cell shape.
V4: marginal adhesion.
V5: single epithelial cell size.
V6: bare nuclei (16 values are missing).
V7: bland chromatin.
V8: normal nucleoli.
V9: mitoses.
class: “benign” or “malignant”.

Data obtained from the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, Madison (Dr. Wolberg). It is based on assessment of bx of breast tumours for 699 patients. Each of nine attributes V1-V9 is scored on a scale of 1 to 10. The outcome class is also known i.e., benign / malignant.

Objectives

To cluster the biopsy samples based on features of histopathological slides into two distinct groups, that will correlate with clinical diagnosis (i.e., benign or malignant tumor).

Whether the membership of the cluster, i.e., the samples within the cluster, are distinctively benign or malignant.

In clustering - each cluster is distinct from each other cluster - objects within each cluster are broadly similar to each other.

Aims

To use several unsupervised machine learning algorithms such as Principal Component Analysis, Hierarchical Clustering, and K-Means Clustering for building the unsupervised machine learning model and compare their clustering accuracies based on known diagnosis of the tumors.

Exploratory Data Analysis

Data Dimension

dim(biopsy)

## [1] 699  11

str(biopsy)

## 'data.frame':    699 obs. of  11 variables:
##  $ ID   : chr  "1000025" "1002945" "1015425" "1016277" ...
##  $ V1   : int  5 5 3 6 4 8 1 2 2 4 ...
##  $ V2   : int  1 4 1 8 1 10 1 1 1 2 ...
##  $ V3   : int  1 4 1 8 1 10 1 2 1 1 ...
##  $ V4   : int  1 5 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 ...
##  $ V5   : int  2 7 2 3 2 7 2 2 2 2 ...
##  $ V6   : int  1 10 2 4 1 10 10 1 1 1 ...
##  $ V7   : int  3 3 3 3 3 9 3 3 1 2 ...
##  $ V8   : int  1 2 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 ...
##  $ V9   : int  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 ...
##  $ class: Factor w/ 2 levels "benign","malignant": 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 ...

The original data has 699 rows and 11 columns.

Missingness

# check if any missing values in the data
anyNA(biopsy)

## [1] TRUE

# list rows of data that have missing values
grid.table(biopsy[!complete.cases(biopsy),])

# Visualizing missing values in the original data
par(mfrow=c(1,3))
vis_miss(biopsy) + theme_minimal()

gg_miss_var(biopsy, facet = class) + theme_minimal()

# create a subset of complete dataset without missing values
biopsy1 <- na.exclude(biopsy)
dim(biopsy1)

## [1] 683  11

A total of 16 missing values; all for V6 (i.e., missing not at random). These observations were deleted before applying clustering algorithms. The complete data has 683 rows and 11 columns.

Outcome Variable

table(biopsy$class)

## 
##    benign malignant 
##       458       241

# Assigning a numeric value to pathological diagnosis based on features on the complete dataset
diagnosis <- as.numeric(biopsy1$class == "benign")
table(biopsy1$class)

## 
##    benign malignant 
##       444       239

table(diagnosis)

## diagnosis
##   0   1 
## 239 444

The last-column i.e., class specifies the specific diagnosis of the tumors. This variable will be used to assess the accuracy of clustering.

Data-Matrix

biopsy2 <- as.matrix(biopsy1[, 2:10])
str(biopsy2)

##  int [1:683, 1:9] 5 5 3 6 4 8 1 2 2 4 ...
##  - attr(*, "dimnames")=List of 2
##   ..$ : chr [1:683] "1" "2" "3" "4" ...
##   ..$ : chr [1:9] "V1" "V2" "V3" "V4" ...

head(biopsy2)

##   V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9
## 1  5  1  1  1  2  1  3  1  1
## 2  5  4  4  5  7 10  3  2  1
## 3  3  1  1  1  2  2  3  1  1
## 4  6  8  8  1  3  4  3  7  1
## 5  4  1  1  3  2  1  3  1  1
## 6  8 10 10  8  7 10  9  7  1

row.names(biopsy2) <- biopsy1$ID
datatable(biopsy2, filter = "top", options = list(pageLenght = 5, scrollX=T))

#head(biopsy2)

Creating a data matrix of the attributes (numeric). Unsupervised learning methods will be applied on this matrix.

Comparison of Features Between Outcomes

Boxplots

mdata <- melt(biopsy, id=c("ID","class"))
p <- ggplot(data = mdata, aes(x=variable, y=value)) + geom_boxplot(aes(fill=class))
p + facet_wrap( ~ variable, scales="free")

Box-plots of Attributes V1-V9

Malignant tumors have higher values, on the scale of 1 to 10, for all the features compared to benign tumors.

Mean Differences

As determined by the t-test, the malignant tumors have significantly higher grading on each of the features (i.e., V1-V9) than benign tumors.

# Perform T-Test on Attributes Between Groups
multi.tests <- function(fun = t.test, df, vars, group.var, ...) {
  sapply(simplify = FALSE,                                   
         vars,                                               
         function(var) {
           formula <- as.formula(paste(var, "~", group.var))
           fun(data = df, formula, ...)                     
         })}

res.multi.t.tests <-  multi.tests(fun = t.test,
                        df = biopsy,
                        vars = c(names(biopsy[c(2:10)])),
                        group.var = "class",
                        var.equal = TRUE, na.rm=TRUE)

p <-data.frame(p.value = sapply(res.multi.t.tests, getElement, name = "p.value"))
p.value <-format.pval(pv = p, digits = 2, eps = 0.001, nsmall = 3)
et <- t(data.frame(estimate = round(sapply(res.multi.t.tests, getElement, name = "estimate"),2)))
ttest <- as.data.frame(cbind(et,p.value))
datatable(ttest, autoHideNavigation="TRUE", options = list(columnDefs = list(list(className = 'dt-center', targets = "_all"))))

Unsupervised Learning Methods

Principal Component Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is particularly useful when working with “wide” data sets. In datasets with many variables, it is often difficult to plot the data in its raw format, making it difficult to determine the trends present within the dataset. PCA enables visualization of the “shape” of the data, identifying which samples are similar to one another and which are very different. This can enable identification of groups of samples that are similar and determine which variables make one group different from another. DataCamp

Execute

biopsy.pr <- prcomp(biopsy2, scale = T, center = T)

Applying prcomp function (from R-Base Package) to execute principal component analysis after scaling and centering the features The prinicipal components are stored as an object biopsy.pr.

Summarizing Principal Components

PCA is a type of linear transformation on a given data set that has values for a certain number of variables (coordinates) for a certain amount of spaces. This linear transformation fits this dataset to a new coordinate system in such a way that the most significant variance is found on the first coordinate, and each subsequent coordinate is orthogonal to the last and has a lesser variance. In this way, you transform a set of x correlated variables over y samples to a set of p uncorrelated principal components over the same samples. DataCamp

summary(biopsy.pr)

## Importance of components:
##                           PC1     PC2     PC3     PC4     PC5     PC6     PC7
## Standard deviation     2.4289 0.88088 0.73434 0.67796 0.61667 0.54943 0.54259
## Proportion of Variance 0.6555 0.08622 0.05992 0.05107 0.04225 0.03354 0.03271
## Cumulative Proportion  0.6555 0.74172 0.80163 0.85270 0.89496 0.92850 0.96121
##                            PC8     PC9
## Standard deviation     0.51062 0.29729
## Proportion of Variance 0.02897 0.00982
## Cumulative Proportion  0.99018 1.00000

There are nine prinicipal comoponents of which the first component (PC1) itself explains about 65% of the variability in the data, as shown by Proportion of Variance = 0.65; and the first two components (PC1, PC2) explain about 74% (as shown by the Cumulative proportion = 0.74 under PC2) of the variability. Thus, variability explained by all nine features can be explained by values of PC1 and PC2 only (dimensionality reduction).

Interpretation

Biplot

library(ggbiplot)
biplot<- ggbiplot(biopsy.pr, pc.biplot = TRUE, scale= TRUE, obs.scale = 1, groups= biopsy1$class, labels = diagnosis, ellipse = TRUE, ellipse.prob = 0.9, alpha = 0.5, var.axes = TRUE, var.scale = 1, circle = TRUE)
ggplotly(biplot)

Biplot of PC1 and PC2

The correlation circle visualizes the correlation between the first two principal components and the 9 dataset features. All the 8 features (V1-V8) are aligned close together and parallel to PC1 axis. Only one feature, V9, is aligned orthogonal to others and parallel to PC2. Thus, PC1 alone explains most of the variability explained by all the 8 features (V1-V8) and combined with PC2, can explain all the variability in teh data and differentiate between benign and malignant tumors.

Features with a positive correlation are grouped together.
Uncorrelated feature (V9) is orthogonal to other features.
Features with a negative correlation will be plotted on the opposing quadrants of this plot.

PC: Scatterplots

PC1 vs PC2

library(tidyverse)
plot(biopsy.pr$x[, c(1, 2)], col = (diagnosis + 1), 
     xlab = "PC1", ylab = "PC2")

Scatter plot observations by components 1 and 2

PC1 vs PC3

# Repeat for components 1 and 3
plot(biopsy.pr$x[, c(1, 3)], col = (diagnosis + 1), 
     xlab = "PC1", ylab = "PC3")

Scatter plot observations by components 1 and 3

PC2 vs PC3

# Do additional data exploration of your choosing below (optional)
plot(biopsy.pr$x[, c(2, 3)], col = (diagnosis + 1), 
     xlab = "PC2", ylab = "PC3")

Scatter plot observations by components 2 and 3

PC: Variance

par(mfrow = c(1, 2))
# Calculate variability of each component: pr.var
pr.var <- biopsy.pr$sdev^2

# Variance explained by each principal component: pve
pve <- pr.var / sum(pr.var)

# Plot variance explained for each principal component
plot(pve, xlab = "Principal Component", 
     ylab = "Proportion of Variance Explained", 
     ylim = c(0, 1), type = "b")

# Plot cumulative proportion of variance explained
plot(cumsum(pve), xlab = "Principal Component", 
     ylab = "Cumulative Proportion of Variance Explained", 
     ylim = c(0, 1), type = "b")

Variance explained by each component and cumulative variance by all components

The first two principal component explain most of the variability in the data

Hierarchical Clustering

Preprocessing

Scale

# Scale the biopsy2 data: data.scaled
data.scaled <- scale(biopsy2)
head(data.scaled)

##                 V1         V2         V3          V4         V5         V6
## 1000025  0.1977598 -0.7016978 -0.7412304 -0.63889730 -0.5552016 -0.6983413
## 1002945  0.1977598  0.2770488  0.2625905  0.75747664  1.6939247  1.7715689
## 1015425 -0.5112687 -0.7016978 -0.7412304 -0.63889730 -0.5552016 -0.4239068
## 1016277  0.5522740  1.5820442  1.6010185 -0.63889730 -0.1053763  0.1249621
## 1017023 -0.1567545 -0.7016978 -0.7412304  0.05928967 -0.5552016 -0.6983413
## 1017122  1.2613024  2.2345419  2.2702324  1.80475710  1.6939247  1.7715689
##                V7         V8         V9
## 1000025 -0.181694 -0.6124785 -0.3481446
## 1002945 -0.181694 -0.2848960 -0.3481446
## 1015425 -0.181694 -0.6124785 -0.3481446
## 1016277 -0.181694  1.3530163 -0.3481446
## 1017023 -0.181694 -0.6124785 -0.3481446
## 1017122  2.267589  1.3530163 -0.3481446

Scaling feature values before clustering process: Feature values from each row are represented as coordinates in n-dimensional space (n is the number of features) and then the distances between these coordinates are calculated. If these coordinates are not normalized, then it may lead to false results. Ref: Hierarchical Clustering in R

Euclidean-Dist

Euclidean distance is used as an input for the clustering algorithm. The proximity matrix containing the distance between each point is determined using a distance function.

# Calculate similarity as Euclidean distance between observations
data.dist <- dist(data.scaled, method = "euclidean")

Calculated (Euclidean) distance is stored as an object data.dist

H-clustering Model

Creating Model: Linkage

biopsy.hclust <- hclust(data.dist, method = "complete")
biopsy.hclust2 <- hclust(data.dist, method = "mcquitty")

Create a hierarchical clustering model using hclust function and two separate methods (i.e. complete and mcquitty); both models are stored as objects: biopsy.hclust and biopsy.hclust2

Details on hclust

Dendrogram: H-Clusters

plot(biopsy.hclust)

Results of hierarchical clustering

plot(biopsy.hclust2)

Results of hierarchical clustering

Cutting the height at 9 will give 2 clusters

Dendrogram: Outlining H-Clusters

# Cut by number of clusters k
plot(biopsy.hclust)
biopsy.hclust.clusters <- cutree(biopsy.hclust, k = 2)
rect.hclust(biopsy.hclust, k=2, border="red")

Results of hierarchical clustering

plot(biopsy.hclust2)
biopsy.hclust2.clusters <- cutree(biopsy.hclust2, k = 2)
rect.hclust(biopsy.hclust2, k=2, border="red")

Results of hierarchical clustering

Using cutree() on biopsy.hclust, assigns cluster membership to each observation. Assumed two clusters and assigned the result to a vector called biopsy.hclust.clusters.

Evaluating H-Clusters

H-Clusters vs Actual

# Clusters using 'complete' method
table(biopsy.hclust.clusters)

## biopsy.hclust.clusters
##   1   2 
## 541 142

thc <- table(biopsy.hclust.clusters, biopsy1$class)
thc

##                       
## biopsy.hclust.clusters benign malignant
##                      1    442        99
##                      2      2       140

# Clusters using 'mcquitty' method
table(biopsy.hclust2.clusters)

## biopsy.hclust2.clusters
##   1   2 
## 450 233

thc2 <- table(biopsy.hclust2.clusters, biopsy1$class)
thc2

##                        
## biopsy.hclust2.clusters benign malignant
##                       1    435        15
##                       2      9       224

Compare cluster membership to actual diagnoses based on complete and mcquitty method of hclust

Sample Errors By H-Clustering

sum(apply(table(biopsy.hclust.clusters, diagnosis), 1, min))

## [1] 101

sum(apply(table(biopsy.hclust2.clusters, diagnosis), 1, min))

## [1] 24

Count out of place observations based on cluster by summing the row minimums

Based on “complete” h-clustering method, 101 tumors do not agree with the actual diagnosis Based on “mcquitty” h-clustering method, 24 tumors do not agree with the actual diagnosis

H-Clustering Model Accuracy

complete method

torg<-table(biopsy1$class)
biop <- c("benign", "malignant")
actual <- factor(rep(biop, times = c(torg[1], torg[2])), levels = rev(biop))
predhc <- factor(
        c(
                rep(biop, times = c(thc[1], thc[2])),
                rep(biop, times = c(thc[3], thc[4]))),               
        levels = rev(biop))
xtab.hclust <- table(predhc, actual)
library(caret)

## Loading required package: lattice

## 
## Attaching package: 'caret'

## The following object is masked from 'package:purrr':
## 
##     lift

cmhclust <- confusionMatrix(xtab.hclust)
cmhclust$overall['Accuracy']

## Accuracy 
## 0.852123

Accuracy H-Clust complete method is 0.85

mcquitty method

biop <- c("benign", "malignant")
actual <- factor(rep(biop, times = c(torg[1], torg[2])), levels = rev(biop))
predhc2 <- factor(
        c(
                rep(biop, times = c(thc2[1], thc2[2])),
                rep(biop, times = c(thc2[3], thc2[4]))),               
        levels = rev(biop))
xtab.hclust2 <- table(predhc2, actual)
library(caret) 
cmhclust2 <- confusionMatrix(xtab.hclust2)
cmhclust2$overall['Accuracy']

##  Accuracy 
## 0.9648609

Accuracy H-Clust mcquitty method is 0.96

K-Means Clustering

The data are clustered by the k-means method, which aims to partition the points into k groups such that the sum of squares from points to the assigned cluster centres is minimized.

Find K

WSS

# Initialize total within sum of squares error: wss
wss <- 0
# Look over 1 to 15 possible clusters
for (i in 1:15) {
  # Fit the model: km.out
  km.out <- kmeans(biopsy2, centers = i, nstart = 20, iter.max = 50)
  # Save the within cluster sum of squares
  wss[i] <- km.out$tot.withinss
}

kmeans documentation

Scree Plot

# Produce a scree plot
plot(1:15, wss, type = "b", 
     xlab = "Number of Clusters", 
     ylab = "Within groups sum of squares")

#### Build KMeans Model

Fitting a k-means model to the data using 2 centers and run the k-means algorithm 20 times. The result will be stored in biopsy.km

set.seed(4)
# Select number of clusters
k <- 2
biopsy.km <- kmeans(scale(biopsy2), centers = 2, nstart = 20, iter.max = 10, algorithm = c("Hartigan-Wong", "Lloyd", "Forgy", "MacQueen"), trace = FALSE)

KM Cluster Model created using kmeans function while applying scaling on features, and stored as an object biopsy.km

Clusters

The cluster membership of the biopsy.km model object is contained in its cluster component and is accessed with the $ operator.

clusplot(biopsy2, biopsy.km$cluster, main='2D representation of the Cluster solution',
         color=TRUE, shade=TRUE, labels=2, lines=0)

Results of K-Means clustering

Evaluating KM Clusters

KM Clusters vs Actual

table(biopsy.km$cluster)

## 
##   1   2 
## 230 453

tkmc <- table(biopsy.km$cluster, biopsy1$class)
tkmc

##    
##     benign malignant
##   1     10       220
##   2    434        19

Compare cluster membership to actual diagnoses based on K-Means clustering Based on K-Means Clustering, two clusters of 453 and 230 samples are created. In the former group of 453, the actual number of benign samples are 434 and malignant samples are 19. Of the 230 samples in the second cluster, there are 10 benign samples and 220 malignant samples

Errors in KM-Clusters

sum(apply(table(biopsy.km$cluster, diagnosis), 1, min))

## [1] 29

Number of Counts out of place observations based on cluster by summing the row minimums Based on the K-Means clustering, 29 tumors do not agree with the actual diagnosis

KMeans Model Accuracy

torg <-table(biopsy1$class)
biop <- c("benign", "malignant")
actual <- factor(rep(biop, times = c(torg[1], torg[2])), levels = rev(biop))
predkm <- factor(
        c(
                rep(biop, times = c(tkmc[2], tkmc[1])),
                rep(biop, times = c(tkmc[4], tkmc[3]))),               
        levels = rev(biop))
xtab.kmeans <- table(predkm, actual)
library(caret) 
cmkmeans<-confusionMatrix(xtab.kmeans)
cmkmeans$overall['Accuracy']

##  Accuracy 
## 0.9575403

Accuracy of K-Means clustering method is 0.957

H-Clustering Using Principal Components

Recall PCA Summary

summary(biopsy.pr)

## Importance of components:
##                           PC1     PC2     PC3     PC4     PC5     PC6     PC7
## Standard deviation     2.4289 0.88088 0.73434 0.67796 0.61667 0.54943 0.54259
## Proportion of Variance 0.6555 0.08622 0.05992 0.05107 0.04225 0.03354 0.03271
## Cumulative Proportion  0.6555 0.74172 0.80163 0.85270 0.89496 0.92850 0.96121
##                            PC8     PC9
## Standard deviation     0.51062 0.29729
## Proportion of Variance 0.02897 0.00982
## Cumulative Proportion  0.99018 1.00000

PC: HC Model

biopsy.pr.hclust <- hclust(dist(biopsy.pr$x[, 1:9]), method = "complete")
biopsy.pr.hclust2 <- hclust(dist(biopsy.pr$x[, 1:9]), method = "mcquitty")

Create a hierarchical clustering model and stored as object biopsy.pr.hclust

Cut Model

biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters <- cutree(biopsy.pr.hclust, k = 2)
biopsy.pr.hclust2.clusters <- cutree(biopsy.pr.hclust2, k = 2)

Cut model into 2 clusters and stored as an object biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters

Evaluation

Matrix

complete method

# Compare to actual diagnoses
table(biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters)

## biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters
##   1   2 
## 544 139

tpc <- table(biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters, biopsy1$class)
tpc

##                          
## biopsy.pr.hclust.clusters benign malignant
##                         1    442       102
##                         2      2       137

sum(apply(tpc, 1, min))

## [1] 104

104 observations were not clustered accurately using the hierarchical clustering of principal components

mcquitty method

# Compare to actual diagnoses

table(biopsy.pr.hclust2.clusters)

## biopsy.pr.hclust2.clusters
##   1   2 
## 450 233

tpc2 <- table(biopsy.pr.hclust2.clusters, biopsy1$class)
tpc2

##                           
## biopsy.pr.hclust2.clusters benign malignant
##                          1    435        15
##                          2      9       224

sum(apply(tpc2, 1, min))

## [1] 24

24 observations were not clustered accurately using the hierarchical clustering of principal components

Accuracy

complete method

torg<-table(biopsy1$class)
biop <- c("benign", "malignant")
actual <- factor(rep(biop, times = c(torg[1], torg[2])), levels = rev(biop))
predpc <- factor(
        c(
                rep(biop, times = c(tpc[1], tpc[2])),
                rep(biop, times = c(tpc[3], tpc[4]))),               
        levels = rev(biop))
xtab.pc <- table(predpc, actual)
library(caret) 
cmpc<-confusionMatrix(xtab.pc)
cmpc$overall['Accuracy']

##  Accuracy 
## 0.8477306

mcquitty method

torg<-table(biopsy1$class)
biop <- c("benign", "malignant")
actual <- factor(rep(biop, times = c(torg[1], torg[2])), levels = rev(biop))
predpc2 <- factor(
        c(
                rep(biop, times = c(tpc2[1], tpc2[2])),
                rep(biop, times = c(tpc2[3], tpc2[4]))),               
        levels = rev(biop))
xtab.pc2 <- table(predpc2, actual)
library(caret) 
cmpc2<-confusionMatrix(xtab.pc2)
cmpc2$overall['Accuracy']

##  Accuracy 
## 0.9648609

Comparision Between Methods

External Cluster Validation

Clustering results are evaluated based on some externally known result, such as externally provided class labels i.e., benign/malignant for this dataset.

cluster_models <- as.data.frame(list( 
        'K Means' = round(cmkmeans$overall, 3),
        'H Clust complete' = round(cmhclust$overall, 3),
        'H Clust mcquitty' = round(cmhclust2$overall, 3),
        'Pr.Comp HClust.comp' = round(cmpc$overall, 3),
        'Pr.Comp HClust.mcquitty' = round(cmpc2$overall, 3)
        ))
datatable(t(cluster_models))

Based on external validation, the Hierarchical Clustering using mcquitty method was the most accurate model followed by K-Means clustering for clustering benign and malignant breast tumor samples.

Internal cluster validation

The clustering result is evaluated based on the data clustered itself (internal information) without reference to external information. Internal validation measures reflect often the compactness, the connectedness and separation of the cluster partitions. Measures include: Dunn Index $(=min. separation/max. dia)$, Average Silhouette Width, Separation Index

cshc1 <- cluster.stats(data.dist, biopsy.hclust.clusters)
cshc2<-cluster.stats(data.dist, biopsy.hclust2.clusters)
cskm <- cluster.stats(data.dist, biopsy.km$cluster)

DI<-as.data.frame(list(cshc1$dunn, cshc2$dunn, cskm$dunn))
IntVal <- data.frame("Dunn-Index" = c(cshc1$dunn, cshc2$dunn, cskm$dunn),
                 "Silhouette-Width" = c(cshc1$avg.silwidth, cshc2$avg.silwidth, cskm$avg.silwidth),
                 "Separation-Index" = c(cshc1$sindex, cshc2$sindex, cskm$sindex ))
row.names(IntVal) <- c("Hierarchical Clustering 'complete'", "Hierarchical Clustering 'mcquitty'", "K-Means")
datatable(IntVal, style="default",  height = "auto", width = "auto")

Conclusion

The different methods produce different cluster memberships.
The algorithms make different assumptions about how the data is generated.
We can choose to use one model over another based on the quality of the models’ assumptions.
In this case, external validation reveals that hierarchical clustering based on mcquitty method provides the most accurate clustering of breast tumor samples. Inaccuracies can be addressed by additional methods of assessment, including clinical judgement, and biomarker assays, to confirm or rule out malignant tumors and vice versa.

Champion Model: hierarchical clustering using mcquitty method

Unsupervised Learning Methods

Umesh Singh

5/1/2020

Unsupervised Learning on Breast Tumor Biopsies

Background

Data

Libraries

biopsy Data Documentation

Objectives

Aims

Exploratory Data Analysis

Data Dimension

Missingness

Outcome Variable

Data-Matrix

Comparison of Features Between Outcomes

Boxplots

Mean Differences

Unsupervised Learning Methods

Principal Component Analysis

Execute

Summarizing Principal Components

Interpretation

Biplot

PC: Scatterplots

PC1 vs PC2

PC1 vs PC3

PC2 vs PC3

PC: Variance

Hierarchical Clustering

Preprocessing

Scale

Euclidean-Dist

H-clustering Model

Creating Model: Linkage

Dendrogram: H-Clusters

Dendrogram: Outlining H-Clusters

Evaluating H-Clusters

H-Clusters vs Actual

Sample Errors By H-Clustering

H-Clustering Model Accuracy

K-Means Clustering

Find K

WSS

Scree Plot

Clusters

Evaluating KM Clusters

KM Clusters vs Actual

Errors in KM-Clusters

KMeans Model Accuracy

H-Clustering Using Principal Components

Recall PCA Summary

PC: HC Model

Cut Model

Evaluation

Matrix

complete method

mcquitty method

Accuracy

complete method

mcquitty method

Comparision Between Methods

External Cluster Validation

Internal cluster validation

Conclusion

`Unsupervised Learning` on Breast Tumor Biopsies